ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication errors remain a major challenge in paediatric prescribing owing to the complexities of weight-based dosing, age-specific formulations and the need for precise calculations. This study examines the association of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool with prescribing errors in paediatric emergency and inpatient settings.
methodsA non-randomised, before-and-after study was conducted at a London tertiary teaching hospital. Prescribing errors were assessed before and after implementing the intervention in the paediatric emergency department (PED) and a general paediatric ward. Errors were identified through manual review of medication orders against predefined criteria based on the British National Formulary for Children and local prescribing guidelines. Dose errors were defined as deviations of ±10% from recommended ranges, with deviations ≥25% categorised as major. Statistical analysis included descriptive comparisons, logistic regression and intention to treat analysis to assess the effect associated with the intervention.
resultsA total of 1808 medication orders were reviewed, including 1567 standard practice orders and 241 intervention-supported orders. When the intervention was used, the overall prescribing error rate was 1.2%, compared with 7.14% in the control orders, representing an 83% reduction in the odds of error (OR 0.17). In the general paediatric ward, errors reduced from 9.1% to 1.1% (OR 0.11), while in PED, error rates declined from 4.9% to 1.4% (OR 0.27). Errors that occurred when using the intervention were attributed to prescriber deviation from system recommendations rather than inaccuracies within the tool itself.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that use of the intervention is associated with significantly lower odds of a prescribing error occurring in paediatric settings. Future work should focus on optimising prescriber adherence, enhancing system integration into clinical workflows and exploring economic and user-experience outcomes to maximise impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.